Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz voted to pardon a 42-year-old Laos national convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl, and he did it one week before the man was scheduled to be deported.
The pardon, granted on June 10, erased the first-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction of Tou Lue Vang, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to abusing the child over a four-year span from 2002 to 2006. By wiping the conviction, the Minnesota Board of Pardons removed the legal basis for federal authorities to remove Vang from the country.
The Department of Homeland Security responded with a blistering public rebuke. Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis told Fox News:
"Governor Tim Walz's decision to pardon an illegal alien convicted child rapist so he can remain in our country is disgusting."
Bis added that DHS is "calling on Gov. Walz to stop these dangerous political games and to stop prioritizing criminal illegal aliens over American citizens."
Vang entered the United States and received legal status in 1994 under the Clinton administration. Between 2002 and 2006, he repeatedly sexually assaulted a girl who was 10 years old. He pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct in 2006.
Despite the severity of the crime, Vang avoided prison. The Washington Examiner reported that he was sentenced to 12 years with the sentence stayed, plus 30 years of supervised probation. His conviction revoked his legal immigration status, and he was issued a final order of removal the same year.
For two decades, that removal order hung over Vang. Then, under the Trump administration's "Operation Metro Surge" immigration enforcement effort in Minnesota, federal authorities detained him and scheduled his deportation to Laos.
One week before that deportation was set to occur, Walz and the Board of Pardons stepped in.
The Minnesota Board of Pardons consists of three officials: the governor, the attorney general, and the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. In this case, that meant Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson all voted to grant the pardon. The vote was unanimous.
The pardon did not merely reduce Vang's sentence or restore a civil right. It erased his qualifying conviction entirely. As DHS stated, the pardon "will take away this child rapist's qualifying convictions that made him removable from the United States." The practical effect: federal immigration authorities may now lack the legal grounds to deport him.
Walz's office justified the decision by pointing to a letter the victim submitted to the board supporting the pardon. A spokesperson said such pleas for clemency "carry significant weight." The New York Times, which also covered the pardon, confirmed the victim's letter. No portion of the letter's text has been made public.
Carli Stark, executive director of the Minnesota Clemency Review Commission, sent Vang a letter after the pardon. The New York Post reported that it read: "Being granted a pardon is a notable achievement and a reflection of the work you have done since your conviction."
A "notable achievement." For a man who sexually abused a child for four years.
The Vang pardon was not an isolated act of clemency. In May, the same state apparatus pardoned Jai Vang, another Laotian citizen and illegal immigrant whose criminal record includes convictions for robbery, armed robbery of a business, and driving under the influence. That pardon also drew DHS criticism.
A pattern is visible. Minnesota's clemency machinery, with Walz as its most prominent member, has moved repeatedly to shield illegal immigrants with serious criminal histories from federal deportation. The Board of Pardons' decision to clear a convicted child sex offender facing removal is the most extreme example yet.
DHS framed it as part of a broader sanctuary posture. Bis's statement pointedly accused Walz of prioritizing criminal illegal immigrants over American citizens, a charge that gains force when the pardoned individual's crime involved a child victim.
Understanding why this pardon matters requires understanding how deportation law works. Federal immigration authorities rely on criminal convictions as the legal predicate for removal. When a state governor erases that conviction through a pardon, the federal government can lose its statutory basis to deport. DHS told Newsmax that the pardon removes Vang's "qualifying convictions that made him deportable," potentially blocking federal removal efforts entirely.
The timing makes the intent unmistakable. Vang was not pardoned years ago as part of a routine clemency review. He was pardoned seven days before his scheduled deportation flight. The pardon functioned as a last-minute intervention to override federal enforcement, a state government using its clemency power to obstruct a lawful removal proceeding.
This is not a case where reasonable people can disagree about prosecutorial discretion or the merits of rehabilitation. A man sexually assaulted a child for four years. He pleaded guilty. He avoided prison through a plea deal. And now, two decades later, the governor of Minnesota erased the conviction so the man could stay in the country.
Walz's office leaned heavily on the victim's letter as justification. Victim input matters in any justice proceeding. But a victim's personal forgiveness, however sincere, does not erase the public interest in accountability or the federal government's authority to enforce immigration law.
The pardon board did not merely honor a victim's wishes. It used those wishes as political cover to block a federal deportation. Those are two very different things. And the governor's office knew it, which is why the statement emphasized the letter rather than defending the pardon on its own merits.
Several questions remain unanswered. What conditions, if any, were attached to the pardon? Did Walz or Ellison communicate with Vang's legal team about the pending deportation before the clemency vote? Was the timing coordinated to preempt the removal order? None of these questions have been addressed publicly.
This pardon lands in a state already facing serious questions about governance and oversight. Minnesota taxpayers watched the Feeding Our Future fraud scandal produce a 41-year prison sentence for its ringleader, a case that exposed massive failures in the state's ability to prevent the theft of public funds.
Separately, federal investigators have been examining nine Minnesota daycare centers that received $67 million in state payments and are now under federal investigation. The state's track record on accountability is not reassuring.
And the intersection of immigration enforcement and child safety has been a persistent national concern. Federal prosecutors recently charged illegal immigrants from Guatemala in an alleged child-smuggling ring tied to a Biden-era program, a reminder that lax enforcement has real consequences for the most vulnerable.
Strip away the procedural language and the appeals to victim sentiment, and the Walz pardon reveals a straightforward set of priorities. When forced to choose between allowing the federal government to deport a convicted child sex offender and using state power to keep that man in the country, the governor of Minnesota chose to keep him here.
He did so unanimously, alongside his attorney general and chief justice. He did so one week before the deportation was scheduled. And he did so knowing full well that erasing the conviction would likely make removal impossible.
DHS called it disgusting. That word does a lot of work, but in this case it may not do enough. The pardon was not a lapse in judgment or a bureaucratic error. It was a deliberate act by three of Minnesota's highest officials to override federal immigration enforcement on behalf of a man who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a child.
Walz's office wants voters to focus on the victim's letter. Voters should focus on the governor's signature.
When a state uses its pardon power to shield convicted sex offenders from deportation, the question is no longer about clemency. It is about whose side the government is on, and in Minnesota, the answer is now on the record.